A couple points of clarification, if I may ...
2. Two apparently novice divers did what we all preach: they went diving as buddies in conditions within their training and experience: a diving area that happens to be supported by improvements created with tax dollars for all divers.
Actually, virtually all of the improvements to this site have been created by private donations and the volunteer work of the recreational (non-hunting) divers who use this site regularly.
4. The diver took one animal (this fact seems to be lost: he took ONE animal ONE time).
... and my tone didn't become confrontational until he said he was coming back tomorrow for another one ... if he did what he was legally entitled to do, within a week there would be no octopus left for the rest of us to see.
5. B(GD) confronted the diver. None of us other than those actually standing in earshot know what was said, but it appears the diver has expressed some regret.
There's plenty of regret to go around ... none of us involved in this incident expected it to turn into anything more than a local squabble over a shared resource.
6. A social media press ensued against the diver that took the one animal (apparently confirmed to be a male that was not protecting eggs, baby seals, or kittens).
Not true ... this was not confirmed. It was claimed by the young hunter. He claims the WDFW inspector validated the claim, but all I can get from her recorded statements is that it might have been. By the time she saw the animal it had already been butchered. At that point, it's rather difficult to tell.
As stated elsewhere, there's an easy way to tell ... if you want to know what it is, Google the term hectocotylus, and do some reading about the physical differences between male and female GPO's. This one was not a male.
7. Brother and sister divers advocated everything from murdering this diver by lynching him, giving him a 10% fill, or taking other action below the surface, to commiting felony criminal mischief against his property while he was submerged, to turning him in for MIP based on a facebook post. Again, all over one animal a brother diver had the right to harvest and apparently didn't know the unwritten law against hunting at this partularl location.
What he knew or didn't know is a matter of speculation. What is not speculation is that when he was informed of the inappropriateness of his actions, his response was "I don't care".
8. The issue raised by this diver's action in taking this animal is this: whose dive site is it? Does it belong to all divers or should novice divers that want to hunt be relegated to other dive sites (that don't have the nice ammenities that my tax dollars paid for (I lived in Seattle when these were built) and which may not conform to the edict that he dive within his level of comfort and experience)?
The site I mentioned earlier has the same amenities this one does ... a parking lot and public restrooms for changing. What makes it different is that it's not a popular dive site ... and he would have had to spend a bit of time looking around for an octopus den, rather than going directly to one that everyone already knew was there.
In closing, it may be the unspoken rule that this dive site is reserved to tourists and novices. If so, speak it. That's what I suggested. Of course, there is more than one way to communicate (hence my response to your new thread, Dale). If speaking is not enough and enough people feel the same way, then go ahead and use the legislative process to deny our hunting brother and sister divers from accessing this site. Just remember that someday the masses may not like your new hobby, either.
Until now, it has never occurred to anyone that a diver would even consider taking an octopus out of this site. In the 11 years I've been diving there, no one has ever been known to do it. Of the hundreds upon hundreds of people who have been trained at that site, I don't know a single one who would ever consider it. This is a classic case of what everyone complains about ... in the absense of being able to regulate our own behavior, due to the actions of one "I don't care" personality type, a new law becomes necessary to protect the rights of the many against the rights of the two.
But I will say this: shame on anyone that advocates harming any diver or his property over something that does not involve death or physical injury to another diver. And think about this - how would you feel if someone digs up your identity and forwards your post advocating the same to your employer, your favorite dive shop, your dive club, etc.? I'll bet you would say that you didn't really mean it and just posted it in the heat of the moment without thinking.
On this point we are in total agreement. Someone mentioned earlier that I've changed my position. Well, no ... I haven't. But now that I know that people reading this cannot behave within their own responsible boundaries, and have been harassing and threatening in a manner that is completely inappropriate, I won't continue to fan those flames. I've backed off to the point of not challenging some statements that I know to be untrue. I've publicly apologized to this family for the treatment they've received, which I did not do, but which
I do feel some responsibility for. I've spoken to this kid's mother several times, and those have been good, productive conversations. We need to move forward, and "he said, she said" type exchanges won't move us in that direction. If I need to take a hit to my reputation and credibilty among Dylan's supporters, so be it ... I can survive that. But I won't countenance threats of violence. My goal is to protect, not injure ... humans as well as octopus.
I'll bet the young diver that had words with Bob would tell us that he said things in the heat of the moment, wishes he hadn't, and will not hunt at this location in the future. In fact, I think he has.
That applies both ways ...
... Bob (Grateful Diver)
My $0.02.
Respectfully submitted,
db[/QUOTE]
